[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Aug 22 13:36:07 PDT 2021


On 23-Aug-21 07:39, tom petch wrote:
> On 21/08/2021 22:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 22-Aug-21 05:55, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> It's easy enough to cite details by section number or by URL
>> (even figures, e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8989#venn1).
>> So losing page numbers, a feature of .txt that I've often seen
>> mentioned, seems unimportant. This applies to drafts as much
>> as to RFCs.
> 
> May be but when the section spans what would be 50 pages were there to 
> be pages, then I find it somewhat difficult, especially when the same 
> text e.g. 'leaf name', appears in multiple places.  I refer, of course, 
> to YANG modules.  Perhaps YANG version 2.1 will introduce the concept of 
> sections.

Shouldn't we be handling YANG modules differently, i.e. using some
system for handling diffs and issues in code? Handling them as if
they are English text make no sense.

   Brian

> 
> Tom Petch
> 
>> The only use I have made of .txt on recent drafts is to run rfcdiff.
>> IMHO, rfcdiff is an essential tool for document development.
>> I can't see anything else that amounts to a need.
>>
>>      Brian
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>> .
>>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list